Mellow Mountain Radio

Tarot Card

get_tarot_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

Draws from the full 78-card Rider-Waite tarot deck. Returns the card of the day over Sedona (same for all listeners, turns at midnight MST), a single random draw, or a three-card past/present/future spread. Each card includes upright and reversed meanings, astrological correspondence, and suit element.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spread`	No	daily = today's card of the day (deterministic, Sedona date); single = one random card; three = past/present/future. Defaults to daily.
`card_name`	No	Look up a specific card by name, e.g. 'The Tower' or 'Ten of Cups'. Returns full upright and reversed meanings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`card`	No
`date`	No
`note`	No
`astro`	No
`cards`	No
`glyph`	No
`spread`	No
`upright`	No
`reversed`	No
`tarot_page`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds deterministic daily card (same for all listeners, midnight MST), random single/three, and output contents (meanings, astrology, suit). However, the card_name parameter behavior is not mentioned in the description (only in schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence sets deck, second lists options and output. Information is front-loaded efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists and schema covers parameters fully, description covers all key behaviors (deck, spreads, output content). No missing necessary information for a tarot card draw tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage 100% with descriptions. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining determinism for daily, random for others, and detailing output (upright/reversed, astrological correspondence, suit element). Provides context not in the enum descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'draws' with 'full 78-card Rider-Waite tarot deck' and lists three distinct spreads (daily, single, three-card). Unambiguous resource and action, clearly distinguished from sibling tools which are all non-tarot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage for tarot readings, but no explicit when-to-use vs siblings or when-not-to-use. The description focuses on internal options (spread types) rather than external comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mellow Mountain Radio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in areas like listener management (get_listener_profile, get_or_create_listener, register_listener, update_listener_preference, log_listener_history) and alerts (get_emergency_alerts, get_nws_alerts, get_fire_restrictions, get_wildfire_perimeters). This can cause confusion for an agent selecting the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but verbs are inconsistent: 'get_', 'search_', 'submit_', 'log_', 'update_', 'register_', 'get_or_create_'. The listener management tools have varying verbs, and there is a mix of specific and generic names. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, the server is overloaded for its stated purpose as a radio station. It covers many unrelated domains (emergency alerts, hiking, chakras, etc.), which would be better split into separate, focused servers. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

While the radio-related tools (now playing, requests, schedule, listener management) cover core functionality, the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., hiking trails, chakras, sports scores) dilutes the server's purpose. There are obvious gaps in radio-specific features (e.g., no tool for playlist management or DJ scheduling) but an overabundance of peripheral tools.

Resources

Need Help?